BAE Systems was awarded a contract by the Commonwealth of Australia to upgrade existing Mk 45 Mod 2 naval gun systems on Anzac class frigates with a Common Control System (CCS).
The upgrade modifies existing Mk 45 systems to eliminate obsolescence issues and extend the life of the gun system.
“In addition to delivering commonality and interoperability with the U.S. Navy’s gun systems, the upgrade will equip the Mk 45s with the capability to integrate future extended-range precision guided munitions, such as the hypervelocity projectile.”
The CCS upgrade replaces electronics on earlier Mk 45 Mod 1 and Mod 2 gun systems to be compatible with the Mk 45 Mod 4, the latest configuration used by the U.S. Navy.
“The Common Control System upgrade is the most cost-effective way to extend the life of Mk 45 gun systems, enabling them to provide critical ship naval fires and creating a configuration that allows for the integration of future precision guided munitions” said Brent Butcher, vice president of weapon systems at BAE Systems.
“We are committed to modernising and equipping allied nations with enhanced Mk 45 gun systems to address current and future threats.”
Work on the contract will take place at the BAE Systems production facility in Louisville, Kentucky with the first delivery planned in early 2026.
Are the type 26s getting the MOD 4 variant or an earlier baseline unable to integrate with USN systems or take the forthcoming more advanced rounds?
I’ve worked out the answer to my own question.
The type 26s are getting the latest Mod4 configuration. Phew.
They mention BAE’s Hyper Velocity Projectile. Are we supposed to be getting these? BAE say they can do missile defence, anti-ship and anti-small boat. Their website only has CAD renderings, but it seems like a serious project.
That’s interesting this round can be fired by 155mm army systems too it says. Even more interesting ‘future rail guns’ which suggests as I stated before this technology may have been paused but that it’s still a project that has legs as and when the environment and prospects change. Clearly Bae hasn’t given up on railguns.
The concept is for a sub-calibre maneuvering munition, so the launch calibre is largely irrelevant. I don’t think it’s that BAE are pushing for railgun development at the moment but they want to have a product ready if that becomes necessary
HVP relies entirely on aerodynamics to maintain near-hypersonic speed, so again the launch platform is irrelevant. Think of it more like the hittile of StarStreak or the terminal dart of Aster. Instead of a booster providing the launch altitude and velocity, you have a gun.
The US Navy had been doing firing trials from the Mk45 using the HVP, from 2018 to 2021. The HVP when fired from the 5″ travels at just over Mach 3 to a range of 50 miles (80km). This is much faster and further than a standard HE shell. The HVP is a guided sabot round, but BAe have declined to say what the guidance is. But based on the projectile’s shape, it probably used command guidance. It is pretty manoeuvrable have been used to target small aerial drones and larger drones mimicking cruise missiles.
The USN renamed the HVP as the Gun Launched Guided Projectile, then subsequently cancelled the program in 2022. Stating: “the potential capabilities these rounds offer are not worth the costs.” Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as they were expected to cost between $80 and $100K each. Which is significantly less than a RIM-116 missile.
The US Army and Airforce have also been conducting trials with HVP, but with the 155 and 203mm variants. Where they successfully shot down a number of aerial targets. They even asked BAe to manufacture a 105mm variant to test. But there’s been no news on that one.
Looking at lessons to be learned from both the Ukraine War and the actions off Yemen. There is a definite need for a cheaper alternative of using an expensive SAM to take out a relative cheap suicide drone. We may see a resurgence in using the 5″ Mk45 as an air defence weapon, if BAe’s HVP goes into production. The HVP nicely bridges the gap between smaller calibre airburst/point detonation shells and short range missiles like the RIM-116.
However, there may be an alternative to HVP, which is DARPA/Raytheon’s Multi-Azimuth Defence-Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES). Which is really a gun launched missile. Raytheon have said MAD-FIRES can be scaled up, to be fired from larger calibre weapons, including the Navy’s 5″. MAD-FIRES like HVP is also a saboted round, but includes a solid rocket motor in the sabot’s tail, thereby giving it a much higher terminal speed than its direct competitor, Leonardo’s DART. Raytheon have not been very forthcoming with specifics on MAD-FIRES. But it looks like it uses semi-active radar homing (SARH) for it guidance. Is pretty manoeuvrable and from what I hear is looking to take out target 10 miles (16km) away, when fired from the Mk110 57mm gun. If it is scaled up to be fired from the 5″, it will have at least triple the propellent initially accelerating it. Therefore, when the rocket motor is ignited, it will reach a much higher terminal speed and an increased range, probably similar to or slightly better than HVP. Projected costs are similar to HVP. One advantage HVP does have over MAD-FIRES, is that it contains a larger explosive. Therefore is more useful against other targets, such as land based fortifications.
An outside contender would be the DART. Specifically designed for the OTO (Leonardo) 76mm gun. Though Leonardo have trialled it fired from their 5″ gun. It is also a saboted guided round, but does not have rocket assistance. It can also engage target’s at around 10 miles. But uses radar command guidance, which is a simpler/cheaper method of guidance. Where a data-link sends manoeuvre commands to the DART, compared to MAD-FIRES (fire and forget) radar homing method. Which means a ship using MAD-FIRES should be able to simultaneously intercept more targets than DART.
Of the three systems, I would say MAD-FIRES has the greatest potential for air defence. primarily due to it guidance method, but also due to its rocket assistance. Just need the US Navy to say they are going to trial it from the Mk45 and hope the RN takes note. Though they did mention it for the T31’s Mk110.
I have seen references to MAD-FIRES alongside Bofors 3P for the T31s, but not for 127mm. I suppose launching normal MAD-FIRES from a 5″ would be a waste of calibre, wouldn’t it. No point firing a tiny little buzzy thing from a massive gun. I quite like the concept of HVP; it seems to have a wide range of targets, reasonable cost and at least the promise of high performance.
No not really. Raytheon have said MAD-FIRES can be scaled up to be fired from larger guns. This can mean one of two things. Either they keep the dart the same size and just increase the size of the carrier. Or the increase the size of MAD-FIRES dart and adjust the carrier to suit.
The first option when fired from the 5” weapon system, means there is significantly more propellant (at least 8 times as much) generating a massive muzzle velocity. So the dart will travel both significantly faster and further than from a 57mm gun. It still uses the existing rocket to reach an even higher velocity. Therefore it’s time to target will be much reduced. However, the dart’s explosive content is still relatively small.
Conversely with the second option. Where Raytheon has scaled up the dart. It will be heavier, but contains a much larger warhead. Therefore when fired, its muzzle velocity will be much lower than the lighter standard size dart. However, it will contain a much larger rocket motor. Which should increase its terminal velocity and therefore mitigate its lower muzzle velocity. It won’t likely match the lighter dart’s velocity, but it won’t be too far behind.
MAD-FiRES is supposed to be capable of intercepting targets out to 10 miles. Raytheon clearly haven’t given any specific range/speed details yet, as it’s still in development! However, BAe have said that the HVP when fired from the 5” gun, reaches a terminal speed over Mach 3 and engaged targets around 20 miles away. The HVP does not have a rocket motor, so after it’s been fired it will be slowing down due to drag. So in theory a MAD-FIRES which is also a sabot, should travel further and faster than the HVP, if it’s scaled up or not, when fired from the 5” gun.
That makes sense, but then wouldn’t putting a little cylinder of propellant on the back of the HVP have the same effect of increased range by turning it into Zumwalt style base bleed? You’d retain the utility of wider target set too.
I understand the use of MAD-FIRES from a 57mm, but there isn’t really a point from 5″ when there’s a calibre-specific option available, beyond, as you point out, the advantages in muzzle velocity.
Hi SB, if you were a ship’s Commander, would you prefer to intercept a target/group of targets 10 or 20 miles away? This is the difference of using the 5″ gun compared to the smaller 57mm.
I would tend to agree that using the standard size MAD-FIRES using a scaled up carrier for the 5″, on the face of it doesn’t make sense. For Raytheon it does mean you only have one production line building the dart and another line building the significantly simpler to produce various sized carriers.
But, scaling up the dart does also have its advantages. Simply the dart now carries a larger warhead along with a larger surrounding fragmentary tube. So its kill radius is expanded. But also perhaps more significantly, is that it contains a larger rocket motor. Thereby enabling it to reach a higher terminal velocity (probably still lower than the smaller dart fired from the same gun), thus giving the dart more potential energy. Allowing it to engage erratically manoeuvring targets with a much higher chance of interception.
It is this ability to engage multiple targets at 20 miles, or sea skimming targets that have just popped over the horizon, that would be a major advantage. especially if they were cheap FPV style drones. The disadvantages is the slower rate of fire and traverse speed. Which can be mitigated by engaging targets further away. But you could also include the 57mm system for closer in targets. Thus having a cheaper multi-layered system other than missiles, for massed swarming attacks etc.
BAe’s development of HVP was initially for the railgun project that later got shelved. But as the the round was a sabot. They scaled up the carrier for the 5″, 155mm and 203mm guns. As far as I can tell it also uses command guidance to engage targets. So it has the same disadvantage as DART. Base bleed would be an easy mod to get a bit more speed/range. But with rocket assistance, it would have a similar reduced time to target and range increase as the MAD-FIRES.
I didn’t mean that I would choose 57mm over 5″ if I had the choice, that would be silly. It would be nice for future ships such as the T83 if the 57mm were considered as secondary armament alongside the 5″ firing guided shells in multiple roles, so you would get anti fast boat out to 20 miles, hitting large drones out to nearly that, then smaller drones and swarms would bring in the 57mms as a layered defence.
If Madfires is Semi Active then it is not fire and forget by definition, the illumination antenna needs to be pointed to the target until the interception. Unless there are more than one illumination antenna.
Yes, you’re technically correct. For example Leonardo’s DART is a command guided weapon. In that it requires the ship’s radar to track the target continuously with a high resolution. Fire the DART in the general direction. Then via radio data-link, command the DART to steer towards the target. Where the radar must follow the targets track to generate a very high target interception resolution for the interception. For such an interception, you will have to use a high resolution radar waveform, such as pulse-Doppler or frequency modulated carrier wave (FMCW).
MAD-FIRES from what little information that has been released. Uses semi-active radar homing (SARH) to guide the weapon towards the target. For this to work you just need a basic radar reflection off the target. So you can use a simple continuous wave waveform.
It also means that the transmitted beam can be very wide, compared to the much narrower one required for DART. Thereby allowing many more targets to be engaged in the radar’s field of view and that time frame.
So in essence once MAD-FIRES is assigned its target and after firing, then homes on to the target’s radar reflection. There is no further interaction between it and the ship. Which is kind of “fire and forget”. Unless Raytheon have included a radio data-link that has not been made general knowledge yet.
Yippeee BAE again flying the flag for oh right… themselves. Ff sake.
Morning Klonkie, I wonder if NZ will follow Aus and upgrade their Anzac’s 5″ guns if not mod 4 already?
And why NZ never got AShMs fitted or even FFBNW on their Anzac’s? It might be a bit of squeeze but they could get at least 4 NSMs forward per ship. Just to give them a bit more punch. Non of my business, just asking. 😆